Minutes:
The Town Centre Regeneration Programme Manager presented an update on the second phase of the town centre redevelopment (Appendix 1).
During presentation of this update the following key points were discussed:
· The impact of The Co-operative’s lease of a unit in the Birmingham Road Retail Park on the future introduction of a Sainsbury’s supermarket at that location and the significant role of Sainsbury’s in the overall redevelopment of the town centre.
· The inclusion of break clauses in the leases for The Co-operative and new What store. Members were advised that break clauses would have to have been negotiated between parties, though the content of those clauses were private.
· The completion of High Street works using sources of funding not derived from the Section 106 for the Sainsbury’s development.
· The impact of development on the Birmingham Road / Stourbridge Road junction. Members were advised that the works required at the junction would depend on the scale of the development that eventually took place.
· The impact of the opening of Parkside on traffic at the same junction. Officers explained that the majority of staff would be required to park in external car parks and this would help to limit traffic at the junction. However, concerns were expressed about the safety of increasing numbers of pedestrians at that junction.
· The deadline for use of Section 106 funding provided by the health centre at Parkside.
· The sale of the car park on Birmingham Road, the potential loss of car parking revenue and the impact on the value of the property. Officers assured Members that the Council took advice from the District Valuer and would require their support to proceed with any proposals.
· The Area Action Plan permitted a mixed use development on Windsor Street, comprising both retail and residential units. The site was being advertised for development and decisions would be made on the exact mix based on the proposals received from developers though the Council was obliged to achieve best value in any final outcome.
· The commitment of the Council to a move to Parkside, with the majority of shared services based at Redditch Town Hall. Officers confirmed that as the agreement had been reached with partners and significant progress made developing the site it would not be appropriate to withdraw from Parkside at this stage.
· There was a covenant on Parkside which required the building to be used as office space and for other services provided by partners, such as the library. Alternative uses of the site were therefore unlikely to be acceptable. Officers suggested that further information about Parkside could be circulated by email after the meeting if required.
· The changes to the recreation ground, which would comprise enhancement works rather than redevelopment. The ground was recognised as being a useful community asset, though significant investment was required to make it more appealing to the public.
· Progress with the development at the Recreation Road site. Officers confirmed that all of the significant milestones had been met and that planning permission would be required to progress further.
· The withdrawal of OPUS from the development of Hanover Street Car Park. The potential tenants and end users remained committed to the development.
· The Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) had approved the bid from OPUS for £700,000 towards the development on Hanover Street. It had been intended that this funding would be used to support the costs associated with a cinema build and fit out. The cinema operator remained committed to introducing a cinema in Bromsgrove.
· Members were advised that OPUS did not have exclusive rights in relation to any of the potential tenants and that the food retailer did not require the cinema to proceed.
· The introduction of a cinema would have positive implications for the night time economy in particular.
· Officers were in the process of meeting with representatives of the Council’s procurement and legal teams to discuss future development options at the site. However, the timeframes for the options could not be confirmed.
· Officers had been formally advised by OPUS that they intended to withdraw on Friday 12th September. However, there had been a delay in communicating this information to elected Members until the return of the Chief Executive from annual leave to enable officers to start to work through the options that could be explored in the future.
· A new housing development had previously been considered for the Hanover Street site. Officers confirmed that this option could be reconsidered alongside other options.
· Options for the rerouting of the brook would also be considered.
· The plans for George House, which remained to be clarified.
· Deliveries in the town centre and the introduction of a gate to restrict access. The gate would be operated remotely once it was connected to the system.
· Use of the High Street as a thoroughfare by cyclists, despite the fact that cycling was not permitted, and the safety implications for pedestrians.
· Snagging works would continue, particularly on the highways, to complete any outstanding works or works which appeared to be unfinished.
· The intention not to undertake any treatment of the natural stone used on paving on the advice of contractors and the equipment available to clean the paving surfaces.
· Officers confirmed that the item had been removed from the Cabinet Work Programme. Further approval from Cabinet was not be required until a later stage.
The Chairman suggested that it would be useful for the Leader and the Portfolio Holder for the Town Centre and Regeneration to attend the next meeting of the Board to comment on the proposals and to answer any questions from Members on the subject. The Board could also discuss progress with the procurement process for the Hanover Street development at the same time.
RESOLVED that
1. the procurement process for the Hanover Street development be discussed at the following meeting of the Board;
2. the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for the Town Centre and Regulatory Services be invited to attend the following meeting of the Board; and
3. the report be noted.